A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Ewa Kowalewska, our pro-life colleague at Human Life International (HLI) Poland, has kindly sent me the press release below, with the exciting news that an icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa will be embarking on a pro-life pilgrimage from “ocean to ocean" from Vladivostok to Fatima:

"PRESS RELEASE

Dramatic Call from Czestochowa
This icon will embark on a pro-life pilgrimage from “ocean to ocean" from Vladivostok to Fatima.

"We stand before you, Mother of Our Redeemer, fully aware that alone we are unable to win this global struggle. Stand at the forefront of the defense of pro-life movements and lead us. Protect life! Save the family! Strengthen us!”

On Saturday, January 28 in the Jasna Gora monastery leaders of the pro-life movements of 16 European and Asian countries: Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, UK, USA and Poland came together. They made an "Act of Trust and Consecration" to the Black Madonna icon of Jasna Gora placing into Our Lady’s hands the protection of life and the civilization of love. Fr. Peter West, Vice President for Missions of Human Life International (HLI), the largest international pro-life organization, read the text in English. Galina Maslennikova, Head of the Family Center at the Catholic Cathedral in Moscow, read the act of Trust and Consecration in Russian. Ewa Kowalewska, representing the Club of Friends of Human Life and HLI-Poland presented the text in Polish.

This solemn celebration in the icon chapel of Jasna Gora was led by Czestochowa Archbishop Stanislaw Nowak along with two other bishops and numerous Polish and foreign priests. Also present were Orthodox priests from Ukraine and Belarus and the pro-life leaders from these countries.
During the ceremony, Archbishop Nowak blessed a copy of the icon of Czestochowa. According to an ancient tradition of the Pauline Fathers, the copy was touched to the original which the Orthodox Church also recognizes as a significant gesture. Archbishop Nowak called it the “kiss of love.” During the evening televised and radio transmitted “Jasna Gora Appeal” Fr Isidore Matuszewski, prior of the monastery, turned to the Orthodox priests present and welcomed them in the Russian language. They will be entrusted with the copy of the icon as it travels through Russia and the East.

This icon was made using traditional egg tempera and mineral pigments and 23 carat gold on wood of the same size as the original.

The celebrations at Jasna Gora were preceded by a pro-life leaders' meeting consisting mainly of HLI representatives from different countries.They discussed the planning of this ocean to ocean pilgrimage. Fr. Zacharias Jablonski explained the tradition sending icons on pilgrimages and even on the frontlines of battles, with a request to God for help, where there is the greatest threat to life. He spoke about the Polish experience of pilgrim icons of Our Lady of Czestochowa and its fruits.

Dr. Igor Beloborodov of Russia shared the experience of organizing car rallies for life in Russia and Ukraine. He also pointed out the real possibility of an icon pilgrimage from the Far East of Russia, through Central/Eastern Europe and on to Fatima-from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

An organizing committee was formed with representatives of 16 countries including Orthodox movements. Each member of the international committee will create a national committee responsible for the national pilgrimage of the icon. The exact timing and route of the pilgrimage will be determined by the Orthodox movements from Moscow.

"The number of victims already exceeds two billion human beings. Each day an additional 50 thousand children die in their mother’s womb. Many people do not want to have any children at all. Means of destroying fertility and life are becoming more and more common.”

“Infertility of married couples is increasing. The human child is a becoming a product of modern technology, a donor cells and organs.
Children ‘are produced’ with designated attributes, subject to selection. Hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos are preserved between life and death in liquid nitrogen.”

“International man-made law denies legal protection for the life of the unborn child. More and more countries are legalizing euthanasia.
There is a growing attack on marriage and family." (from the act Trust and Consecration)

Defenders of human life take note of these dramatic facts and are convinced that with God's help, through the intercession of the Mother of God, the civilization of life shall prevail. They declare that; "every effort will be made to defend human life, especially the lives of the smallest and most vulnerable.” This new icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa will now begin to create its own history. On Sunday, January 29 it travels to Minsk, Belarus on her way to the East.

Ewa Kowalewska- Club of Friends of Human Life - Human Life International
- Poland."

Sunday, 29 January 2012

Dr John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, (pictured) has told David Cameron, the prime minister, not to legalize gay marriage*. He said (in an interview in the Telegraph yesterday):

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman ... I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are ... We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way ... "

Dr Sentamu rightly alludes to the actions of "dictators" when referring to David Cameron's plans, for the following reasons:

Firstly, consider the enormity of what the government intends to bring about. David Cameron and his government intend to re-define marriage: a fundamental good of human beings, the first and vital cell and source of human society, which is upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the following terms: “Men and women of full age ... have the right to marry and to found a family. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

As Mario Conti, the Catholic archbishop of Glasgow, put it (in the context of the Scottish government's plans): 9 Oct. 2011:

"Those in Government need to be respectfully reminded that a mandate to govern does not include a mandate to reconstruct society on ideological grounds, nor to undermine the very institution which, from the beginning, has been universally acknowledged as of the natural order and the bedrock of society, namely marriage and the family. In terms of law, its support and defence have been on a par with the defence of life itself. We weaken it at our peril."

Secondly, David Cameron and his government are intending intend to redefine marriage without even the fig leaf of an electoral mandate.

Prior to the election neither of the parties now in the Coalition Government made any reference to changing the law in this area in their manifestos.

Yet Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, has told Archbishop Peter Smith, the Catholic archbishop of Southwark, "that the Government intended to introduce same-sex marriage and that the consultation was merely to help with the 'nuts and bolts' of the legislation".

Clearly, the government is refusing a consultation on the principle of gay marriage because they're afraid of the homosexual lobby** and because they're afraid that public opinion is being mobilised in defence of marriage and the family.

It's essential that British citizens, of all faiths and none, show no fear in opposing the government's plans. Let's keep the following key points in mind:

The fundamental group unit of society is not the State; it is the family based upon the marriage of a man and a woman.

Marriage is not the monopoly of Christians or of any particular faith group. As SPUC puts it in our position paper on same-sex marriage: "Marriage is a fundamental good of human beings and a natural institution. While different religions honour marriage and some raise it to a sacrament, they do not thereby deny that it is an institution natural to human beings – a basic human good. People of faith and those of no faith can and do agree on this."

It's essential, in opposing the redefinition of marriage, to do so without prejudice to our opposition to civil partnerships in the UK which were in effect designed as, and are seen by many, as quasi-marriages, as leading homosexual activists have made clear (See SPUC's position paper on same-sex marriage and its accompanying background paper).

To defend man-woman marriage is in no way to denigrate homosexual people, as is sometimes wrongly claimed. Rather, it is simply to defend a vital social institution which protects children born and unborn - and indeed, protects society as a whole. All of us, whatever our personal background, have an interest in supporting this vital, pre-political institution. It is part of the heritage of humanity.

*SPUC's national council, which is SPUC's policy-making body, elected by its grassroots volunteers, last month passed the following resolution to defend marriage:

"That the Council of SPUC, noting the various proposals currently being made by the present Government and others in regard to the status and standing of marriage and its consequent effect upon family life; and further noting the higher proportionate incidence of abortion in unmarried women compared to married women, resolves to do its utmost to fight for the retention of the traditional understanding of marriage in the history, culture and law of the United Kingdom, namely the exclusive union of one man with one woman for life; and accordingly instructs its officers and executive committee to conduct a major campaign to this end, to co-operate with other persons and societies in so doing and specifically to target the Government's consultation period starting in March, 2012, in regard to (so-called) same sex marriage."

**Why is homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.ukSign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email servicesFollow SPUC on TwitterLike SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday, 27 January 2012

Last night on NewsnightDiane Abbott MP and Nadine Dorries MP (two political personalities about whose positions on abortion I have written about previously) were debating Ms Abbott's decision to leave a parliamentary group discussing abortion counselling.

There is a danger that the dust thrown up by the show-down between these ladies obscures the most important fact in this issue: pro-life counsellors, whose work saves lives, are under threat. The Department of Health, Mrs Dorries, Mrs Abbott and the advertising code-writers are all either considering or have already decided in favour of legal or quasi-legal restrictions on pro-life counsellors.

Last Saturday The Telegraphreported that one of the proposals being considered by the cross-party group set-up by the Department of Health is:

"for a system of 'voluntary registration'. This would would mean any organisation offering counselling to women with a crisis pregnancy would have to meet minimum standards, and only use appropriately-trained counsellors. A cross-party group of 10 MPs which has held secret talks over the proposals has become deeply divided about whether organisations running such services should be required to declare any ethical stance - such as holding pro-life beliefs."

How would such a “system” work in practice?

Firstly, it is likely to be the pro-abortion Department of Health, with advice from pro-abortion advisers, which would decide what constitutes "minimum standards" and who are "appropriately-trained counsellors".

Secondly, last night Mrs Dorries told Newsnight:

"I would like anybody with any kind of interest - whether financial or any other kind of interest - in a woman's decision to abort, to declare that interest."

Kirsty Wark, the presenter, asked Mrs Dorries:

"And if you have independent counselling, do you want people who are independent counsellors to actually have to declare that they are actually against abortion or not?"

Mrs Dorries answered:

"Yes" ... "There should be no-one who is in a room with a woman in a crisis pregnancy who has any agenda whatsoever, be it religious or financial."

Some people think that such statements from Mrs Dorries are just clever tactics. If so, they are also dangerous tactics. With powerful and well-resourced opponents in the pro-abortion lobby, she is liable to be held to account for such statements.

And thirdly on 30 April, the following changes to the advertising code will come into effect:

The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (rule 11.11.1): "Advertisements for services offering advice on unplanned pregnancy must make clear in the advertisement if the service does not refer women directly for a termination."
The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing Code (rule 12.24): "Marketing communications for services offering advice on unplanned pregnancy must make clear if the service does not refer women directly for a termination."

The requirements supported variously by the Department of Health, by Mrs Dorries and by the advertising code-writers come from the pro-abortion lobby, which wants to deter pregnant mothers undecided about abortion from contacting pro-life counsellors, and which wants pro-life counsellors effectively black-listed and black-balled.

So pro-lifers must not be distracted by the sparring of two headline-catching MPs - both of whom support legal abortion and its expansion. Rather, we must work to save lives by defending pro-life counsellors from the dictatorship of relativism.

Thursday, 26 January 2012

The government should use its powers to stop TV advertising by commercial abortion centres. The question-and-answer briefing below will give you the information you need to help make this happen.

Q: What has happened?

A: This week the two bodies which draft the advertising code of practice made changes to allow “commercial post-conception advice services” - in reality, abortion clinics which earn income from performing abortions - to advertise on television and radio, in print and elsewhere. Pro-abortion organisations have welcomed the change; pro-life groups, some columnists and many ordinary people (some not pro-life) have objected to it. The change will come into effect on 30 April.

Q: Who exactly has made this decision?

A: Two committees, the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP). These are committees of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). They are not statutory authorities. BCAP draws up the Code of Advertising Practice on behalf of Ofcom.

A: In early 2010 BCAP decided that there was nothing under existing law or codes to prevent non-commercial abortion centres from advertising on TV and radio, as long as the advertisements didn’t actually offer abortion directly. An advertisement by Marie Stopes International, one of the largest abortion chains in the UK and internationally, was shown shortly afterwards on TV.

The advert cleverly avoided mention of abortion. It was all done by implication. It depicted a young woman worried about her period being late. The advert asked: "Who can help her?" and the answer given was Marie Stopes. Thousands of people complained that advertising abortion in this way was illegal, indecent, dishonest and untruthful, but BCAP approved the adverts anyway. SPUC argued (and still argues) that the decision was wrong, not least because Marie Stopes was (and is) run on a commercial basis, with ‘business development’ managers, millions of pounds put aside for ‘future projects’, lucrative contracts with governments, income from fee-paying clients, and perks for its staff typical of commerce (but rare for charities).

This past week (20 January 2012) BCAP have gone further and actually changed its code to allow commercial abortion centres to advertise on TV and radio. This change gives a clear, added confirmation to so-called charities providing abortion that making money from abortion won’t bar them from advertising on TV and radio. Also, this decision will be useful to Marie Stopes and similar abortion operators if at some point they decide to drop their official status as charities, or decide to split up their operations between registered charities and registered (commercial) companies.

Q: Will abortion centres have to say that they perform abortion or have a financial interest in abortion?

A: No. BCAP considered such a requirement but rejected the need for it.

Q: Will pro-life organisations be allowed to advertise on TV and radio?

A: In principle, yes.

Q: If pro-life organisations are allowed to advertise, what’s wrong with allowing abortion centres to advertise?

A: Commercial abortion providers can afford broadcast advertising; whereas groups which provide objective information about abortion and its impact on women's health will be unlikely to afford to advertise. Most pro-life advice services charge nothing. Abortionists can just add the costs of advertising into their charges. Thus there will be a disproportionate opportunity for abortion providers to advance their cause.

CAP have said that any organisation giving post-conception pregnancy advice must first provide “suitable credentials” before being allowed to advertise. There is a real danger that the credentials of pro-life organisations will not be regarded as “suitable” because they refuse to offer abortion or refer women for abortion, and because they reject “official” guidance, such as the guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which was drawn up with the help of abortion providers.

CAP have also said that advertisements by pro-life pregnancy centres must make clear that they do not refer women for abortions. CAP have admitted that they have adopted this requirement based on advice from the pro-abortion Department of Health, the pro-abortion RCOG and a pro-abortion parliamentary committee report.

Q: It’s a free country, with free speech. What’s wrong with abortion centres being allowed to promote what they have to offer?

A: Abortion centres mislead women, by telling them that their unborn babies are just 'products of conception', and that abortion is not killing but simply ending a pregnancy. Allowing commercial abortion centres to advertise on television immediately treats abortion as if it was a service or a desirable product.

Also, this move will increase the number of organisations able to advertise abortion. Marie Stopes and similar organisations have a vested financial interest in abortion, which they can now sustain through broadcast advertising. These organisations offer virtually no practical help to women who keep their babies, yet nowhere does this have to be mentioned.

Q: What should we think about the ASA, BCAP and CAP in the light of this decision?

A: The advertising industry is displaying a bias to support the devious and sleazy agenda of abortion operators, who have ideological and commercial interests in promoting abortion. The ASA already demonstrated a bias against pro-life groups when it attempted to ban advertisements which stated correctly that morning-after pills may cause early abortions. As an industry-based group, it is free to reflect the views of the broadcasters and publishers who want lucrative advertising deals. It is a great shame that it has not acted more impartially.

Q: What should happen now?

A: Jeremy Hunt MP, the cabinet minister with responsibility for media, is reportedly “very unhappy” about the decision but apparently lacks the resolve to act. However, Ed Vaizey MP, his deputy, told Parliament on 2 June 2010 that Mr Hunt has the power to order Ofcom, the statutory regulator, to order TV and radio stations not to broadcast certain advertisements. In contrast, ASA, BCAP and CAP are not statutory bodies. They are not answerable democratically or judicially to anyone, nor do they have power to impose any penalties or hold anyone to account. MPs should remind Mr Hunt of his powers in relation to Ofcom, and urge him to use those powers to rein-in ASA, BCAP and CAP, which have acted irresponsibly.

Q: To whom should I write?

A: Please write to your Member of Parliament (MP), asking him/her to write to Mr Hunt on your behalf, reminding Mr Hunt of his powers in relation to Ofcom, and urging Mr Hunt to use those powers to block all advertisements by abortion centres.

You can write to your MP at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. If you’re not sure of your MP’s name, please visit http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps (where you can also send an electronic message to your MP). Please copy or forward any replies you receive from MPs to SPUC’s political department, either at SPUC HQ or by email to political@spuc.org.uk

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

On Friday I blogged that a very brave Irish radio drama producer, Daniel Reardon, made an extraordinary production of TERMINATION - about the unborn child and abortion - by the writer Brian Comerford. Reportedly, Mr Reardon's employers, RTE Radio 1, Ireland, did not share his courage, and I'm told that a scheduled broadcast of Brian Comerford's work was "aborted".

Brian has emailed me and asked me to update readers with the following:

he will be making TERMINATION free for downloads again on Saturday 28 January

his profile on Amazon - he has TERMINATION exclusively with Amazon for the purpose of the free days.

Brian also wrote:

"As yesterday's news item was about the media being permitted to advertise abortion services, it outrages my sense of fair play that a radio drama that might be seen and heard by many as an inconvenient truth, is suppressed."

On Thursday Pope Benedict addressed a group of US Catholic bishops in Rome (pictured). I recommend strongly reading the whole (brief) address, but in particular I wish to highlight this statement:

"...the issues which are determining the future of American society. ... In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God's gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights."

In other words, Catholic politicians must vote against and oppose abortion, abusive embryo research, euthanasia and the homosexual agenda, which variously threaten the gift of life, human dignity and authentic human rights. This is because such threats "threaten the future of humanity", as Pope Benedict said earlier this month. Dr Jon Cruddas, the Catholic MP who has voted for or otherwise supported abortion, euthanasia and so-called homosexual rights, should take note, as should Dr Cruddas's supporters at The Tablet and the Las Casas Institute.

Saturday, 21 January 2012

SPUC has responded to the decision by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP, for non-broadcast advertising) to allow so-called commercial post-conception advice services - in reality abortion businesses - to advertise on television and radio. SPUC has for several years been running a grassroots nationwide campaign against the proposal, inspiring thousands of ordinary people to protest to the government, Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about such advertising.

"Today's statement by BCAP's Matt Wilson shows just how much his supposed 'watchdog' is acting as the abortion industry's poodle. Mr Wilson claimed that post-conception advice services 'are not there to promote abortion', yet Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Services (BPAS) are Britain's biggest abortion lobbyists and abortion chain operators. Mr Wilson also claimed that 'commercial pro-life pregnancy services will now be able to advertise too.' Yet there are no commercial pro-life pregnancy services in the UK: all pro-life pregnancy services in the UK are non-commercial and therefore cannot afford broadcast advertising. The massive income Marie Stopes and other abortion providers generate from both private and NHS-contracted abortion means they will dominate such advertising.

The pro-abortion bias of BCAP/CAP is further proved by its requirement that advertisements by pro-life pregnancy centres must make clear that they do not refer women for abortions. BCAP/CAP have admitted that they have imposed this requirement based on advice from the pro-abortion Department of Health, the pro-abortion Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and a pro-abortion parliamentary committee report. Yet BPAP/CAP have also ruled that Marie Stopes and their ilk will not have to declare that they offer abortion or have a financial interest in abortion. This two-faced decision is blatant discrimination against pro-life centres at the behest of the pro-abortion lobby.

We are disturbed that Jeremy Hunt, the media secretary, has concluded that he has no power to overrule BCAP/CAP despite being reportedly 'very unhappy' about their decision. This contradicts an admission by Mr Hunt's deputy Ed Vaizey that the media secretary does in fact have such a power, as SPUC has said all along.

This decision will only serve the abortion industry's money-spinning trade which hurts women through killing their unborn children."

Friday, 20 January 2012

I have heard that a very brave Irish radio drama producer, Daniel Reardon, made an extraordinary production of TERMINATION - about the unborn child and abortion - by the writer Brian Comerford .

Reportedly, Mr Reardon's employers, RTE Radio 1, Ireland, did not share his courage, and I'm told that a scheduled broadcast of Brian Comerford's work was "aborted".

The script of this suppressed abortion drama is available for download on Amazon*: amzn.to/Script-Termination

Downloads will be FREE on Amazon tomorrow, Saturday 21st January.

Fiorella Nash, an author and a member of SPUC's research team, tells me:

"I have just read through Termination. The drama switches between the mother and the baby’s perspectives throughout. It avoids any sentimentality by having the pre-natal development side described as though the womb were a machine (this doesn’t sound very good in the telling, but if you imagine a voice-over describing different parts of the process and also the abortion, culminating in the sound of alarms shrieking, it manages to convey the panic and horror without being ghoulish or maudlin).

"Obviously the radio scripts are meant to be heard not read so one has to allow for the technical language of scriptwriting (off-mic, FX etc) ... Nevertheless, I can imagine some of the scenes being incredibly powerful ... "

Thursday, 19 January 2012

SPUC has responded to the announcement by the Wellcome Trust that embryo research into mitochondrial disease will start at its £5.8 million new centre at Newcastle University. At the same time the government has launched a public consultation on whether to pass legislation to allow the 'three-parent' embryo technique to be used for medical treatment.

"These macabre experiments are both destructive and dangerous and therefore unethical. The vast majority of embryonic children created in the laboratory are killed because they do not meet the 'quality control' requirements dictated by scientists involved in such increasingly macabre experiments.

"It doesn't matter how an embryonic child is created, he or she is still an innocent member of the human family and therefore has the right to life.

“Scientists should abandon the spurious field of destructive embryo experimentation and instead promote the ethical alternative of adult stem cell research, which is already providing cures and treatments for the same conditions".

And as I also told the media earlier today, as with IVF and cloning, this mitochondrial technique may well lead to developmental abnormalities. Creating embryonic children in the laboratory abuses them, by subjecting them to unnatural processes. Human life begins at conception. Any grounds for denying human rights to human embryos are arbitrary and self-serving. Scientists should respect human life and pursue ethical alternatives which are much more likely to be successful in the long term.

A claim published today in The Lancet that so-called 'unsafe' - usually illegal - abortions worldwide have risen by 5% is dubious.

The claim was made in a report* by researchers from the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organsation (WHO). The researchers and other commentators in The Lancet are using the figure to argue that so-called 'safe' abortion should be legalised worldwide.

As I told the media this morning, the WHO routinely makes unsubstantiated claims about so-called 'unsafe' or illegal abortion. WHO is one of the world’s major pro-abortion bodies. The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of the worldwide pro-abortion lobby. The report is pro-abortion propaganda, and should be dismissed as such.

Promoters of legal abortion have a proven track-record of making wildly exaggerated claims about the number of so-called 'unsafe' or illegal abortions. Such false claims were made in 1967 to lobby for the UK's Abortion Act and in the 1970s to justify the US's Roe v Wade decision. The late Dr Bernard Nathanson, the US abortion pioneer who became pro-life, admitted that he deliberately exaggerated the estimated number of illegal abortions five-fold when campaigning for abortion legalisation.

The truth is that countries with strict laws against abortion have lower maternal death rates than countries which allow abortion widely. Ireland, where abortion is banned, has one of the world's best maternal health records. Legalised abortion does nothing to improve medical care.

However, this is the first time I'm blogging about MLK's famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail". I've reproduced below some extracts from the letter which I believe are amazingly applicable to the pro-life cause today, including in the UK:

"I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
...
My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and halftruths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
...
My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure.
...

We have waited for more that 340 years for our constitutional and Godgiven rights ... men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
...
[T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.. [and] ends up relegating persons to the status of things.
...
One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
...
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.
...

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all it ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light injustice must be exposed with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion, before it can be cured.
...
More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in the generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people ... Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
...
But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus and extremist for love ... And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" [?] . . . So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calv[a]ry's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime -- the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth, and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation, and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
...
I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership ... I felt that the ministers, priests, and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.
...
In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church ... There was a time when the church was very powerful -- in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." But the Christians pressed on ... Small in number, they were big in commitment ... By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent -- and often even vocal -- sanction of things as they are. But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.
...
I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity ... Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment."

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

Two midwives from Southern General
Hospital in Glasgow have today challenged the Greater Glasgow and Clyde
Health Board over their right not to be involved in abortions in the
hospital’s labour ward. The Abortion Act 1967 states that no one with a
conscientious objection can be forced to participate in abortions.

The
hospital management changed its approach to conscientious objectors
when it started allotting more late abortion cases to the labour ward
instead of the gynaecology department. The management now says that all
sister midwives must oversee midwives performing abortions as well as
those delivering babies. This can entail having to assist with the
abortion procedure. The petitioners believe this is profoundly wrong and
in the past their right to avoid becoming involved had always been
respected. They are bringing the case to enforce the protection of
conscience afforded to all health care staff in the Abortion Act.

The
midwives bringing this case have helped many thousands of mothers to
deliver their babies safely over the past 20 years, contributing to the
Southern General’s outstanding reputation as a maternity hospital.

The
case follows a lengthy grievance procedure that has failed to resolve
the matter. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, told the media today:

“SPUC has been in touch with the midwives over the long
course of the grievance procedure. We would emphasise that there is no
suggestion that these midwives had ever treated any woman unkindly,
despite what some pro-abortion groups might say about pro-life health
care staff. The petitioners' approach is one of professional and ethical
integrity. SPUC Pro-life is supporting the midwives' stance and is
underwriting their legal costs."

The solicitors acting for the midwives are Brodies LLP. They are represented in court by David Johnston QC of Axiom Advocates.

Book now for 5th International Youth Pro-Life Conference, 2 - 4 March
Every year since 2008 SPUC has hosted the International Youth Pro-Life Conference. Around 150 delegates join us from colleges and universities from around the world. This year's the conference is on 2-4 March and the theme is 'Human Dignity'. We have a fantastic line-up of speakers who will address a wide variety of pro-life issues. For more information, see "Young people are emerging on the front line of the pro-life movement" [John Smeaton, 16 January]

Abortion giant given award by two-child policy Vietnam
Marie Stopes International, the international abortion provider, has been awarded a certificate of merit by Vietnam's Ministry of Health (pictured) for its so-called family planning work. [MSI via Twitter, 16 January] Vietnam's government operates a coercive two-child population control policy [SPUC, 21 July 2009] Marie Stopes International is also complicit in China's coercive population programme. [Fr Timothy Finigan, 24 May 2010]

Congratulations to the Good Counsel Network, now 15 years old
The Good Counsel Network (GCN) (website and blog) has celebrated its 15th anniversary. Clare and Stuart McCullough (blog) have, through their prayer, fasting, counselling, support and witness, saved countless lives from abortion and served countless women in need. SPUC is proud to support Good Counsel Network. [John Smeaton, 14 January]

Monday, 16 January 2012

I have said on many occasions before on this blog that the new generation of young people committed to the defence of vulnerable human life is a reason for great hope for the pro-life movement. Over the past few years these young people have emerged on the front line of the pro-life movement through initiatives such as 40 Days for Life in London and Birmingham. SPUC are proud of our work supporting these initiatives and of the work undertaken by young people within SPUC. Over the past year SPUC provided the first ever pro-life presence at Lewisham People's Day - one of London's biggest local fairs and SPUC's summer youth interns conducted a full scale campaign against the opening of a new abortion facility in Stratford.

Young people are showing a willingness to respond to the numerous threats our society poses to vulnerable human life. We must keep educating them about these realities and inspiring them to take action.

Every year since 2008 SPUC has hosted the International Youth Pro-Life Conference to do just that. Around 150 delegates join us from colleges and universities from around the world: England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, USA, Australia, Canada, Portugal, Germany, France, and the Congo. Previous speakers have included: Alex Schadenberg, Sr. Roseann Reddy, Brian Kemper, Rev. Dr. John Fleming and Rebecca Kiessling.

This year's the conference is on 2-4 March and the theme is 'Human Dignity'. We have a fantastic line-up of speakers who will address a wide variety of pro-life issues.

There will also be workshops looking at the effect of performing abortion on the abortionist, organising pro-life action and how the law treats human life during its earliest stages.

When: Friday, 2 March 2012 at 16:00 until Sunday, 4 March 2012 at 15:30Where: Park Inn, Rotherham, Express Park, Manvers WayHow much: £90. You can book and pay online via our online shop, or download and fill out the booking form, posting it to us with a cheque.

The price is heavily subsidised by SPUC, and includes all talks, workshops, handouts, meals, accommodation, and evening socials.

Delegates enjoying some discussion over lunch with Stephen Barrie of the Anscombe Bioethics centre Oxford, Annie, co-founder of Students for Life Bristol and Alithea and Annette of Cardiff Students for Life.

The conference is a great chance to pick up excellent prolife resources for yourself and your college or university prolife group.

Saturday, 14 January 2012

Yesterday the Good Counsel Network (GCN) (website and blog) celebrated its 15th anniversary. Clare and Stuart McCullough (blog) have, through their prayer, fasting, counselling, support and witness, saved countless lives from abortion and served countless women in need. SPUC is proud to support Good Counsel Network and SPUC staff and supporters were well-represented at last night's Mass marking the anniversary.

Friday, 13 January 2012

Yesterday, religious leaders in the United States issued a joint open letter to all Americans entitled: "Marriage and religious freedom: fundamental goods that stand or fall together". The signatories include:

Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York; president, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

The Most Rev. Robert Duncan, Archbishop, Anglican Church in North America

Dr. Jo Anne Lyon, Chair, Board of General Superintendents, The Wesleyan Church

Commissioner William A. Roberts, National Commander, The Salvation Army

Dr. George O. Wood, General Superintendent, Assemblies of God

Bishop H. David Burton, Presiding Bishop, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The letter says, among other things:

"The promotion and protection of marriage—the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife—is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children.

As religious leaders across a wide variety of faith communities, we join together to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society. We also recognize the grave consequences of altering this definition.
...
[W]e believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct. There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result.

These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of “marriage” does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once.
...
Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman... We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage..."

Unfortunately, the joint letter omits to:

say that the signatories actually "will resist the compulsion of the law" if gay marriage is legalised

"[R]edefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools and for wider society ... This proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right [to marry] ... [M]arriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father ... All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father, the evidence in favour of the stability and well being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal ... If the Scottish Government attempt to demolish a universally recognised human right [the right to marry], they will have forfeited the trust which the nation, including people of all faiths and none, have placed in them and their intolerance will shame Scotland in the eyes of the world."

"Those in Government need to be respectfully reminded that a mandate to govern does not include a mandate to reconstruct society on ideological grounds, nor to undermine the very institution which, from the beginning, has been universally acknowledged as of the natural order and the bedrock of society, namely marriage and the family. In terms of law, its support and defence have been on a par with the defence of life itself. We weaken it at our peril."

"Governments do not have the authority to say what marriage is or to change its nature or to decree that people of the same sex can marry ... Marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father. For that reason, same sex unions cannot fulfil the nature and purpose of marriage ... A Government which favours and allows for same sex ‘marriage’...commits an act of cultural vandalism. Such a government does not deserve the trust which the nation, and including many in the Catholic community, has shown in it ...[W]ith the introduction a few years ago of civil partnerships for same sex unions, people of the same sex do not need marriage to live as civilly recognised couples who enjoy the same legal protections as married couples."

Thursday, 12 January 2012

Please pray for SPUC on our 45th anniversary
45 years ago yesterday (11 January), the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC)
was established at a meeting in central London. The meeting was held at
the Wig and Pen Club in the Strand. Alan Smith, who remains a member of
SPUC's executive committee and on its national council, was elected
joint honorary secretary of the Society at that meeting in the Strand.
Alan said: "It's an important landmark in the pro-life movement of which
I'm pleased to be part." [John Smeaton, 11 January]

Hundreds of forcibly-sterilised North Carolina women set to receive $50k compensation
Hundreds of women (one pictured) forcibly sterilised under a now-defunct North
Carolina eugenics programme are set to receive US$50,000 each in
compensation. The state task-force which determined the sum said it was
not seeking to place a value on people's lives. [Mail, 10 January] Such programmes were promoted by Margaret Sanger, the founder of the worldwide abortion movement.

Jersey's health minister against assisted suicide
Anne Pryke, the health minister of the UK island of Jersey, says she
will not support the legalisation of assisted suicide. The BBC reported
that Mrs Pryke said that life was a privilege and should be protected.
Her comments come after a widely-publicised report by a pro-suicide
lobbying group. [BBC, 8 January]

Alan Smith, who remains a member of SPUC's executive committee and on its national council, was elected joint honorary secretary of the Society at that meeting in the Strand. Speaking to me about today's anniversary, Alan said:

"It's an important landmark in the pro-life movement of which I'm pleased to be part."

Alan Smith and Elspeth Chowdharay-Best first discussed the formation of SPUC, he tells me, in July 1966. Elspeth had suggested that Alan Smith write to The Spectator opposing the passage of the Termination of Pregnancy Bill (later the Abortion Act 1967) which was then going through Parliament. When The Spectator failed to publish his letter, they felt "something more formal should be done" so he and Elspeth Rhys-Williams wrote round to academics, political and religious leaders with a view to forming an organization which became the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Phyllis Bowman played a major role in the Society's successful launch. She and Elspeth knew each other through their work for the National Birthday Trust.

It was the first specifically pro-life group to be formed in the world, said Alan.

One of the fifteen people elected on that occasion to serve on the executive committee was Mr Aleck Bourne.

In 1938, Dr. Alec Bourne had performed an abortion on a 14-year-old girl who claimed to have been raped by soldiers. He gave himself up to the police, was charged with performing an illegal abortion, put on trial and acquitted on the grounds that the girl would have become 'a mental wreck' if she had not had the abortion. As a result of the Bourne case, more and more abortions began to be practised in Britain in cases where the woman's physical or mental health was thought to be in danger, a loophole in the law that was interpreted increasingly loosely. Dr Bourne became so concerned about the results of his action that he became a founder member of the SPUC.

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.